my website

Monday, December 16, 2013

Warhol portraits at Milwaukee’s Jewish Museum

-->

The exhibit of large-scale silkscreen prints by Andy Warhol
that opened yesterday at Milwaukee's Jewish Museum is titled prosaically, “10 Portraits
of Jews of the Twentieth Century.” Warhol’s subjects have familiar names if not
always recognizable faces: Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, the Marx Brothers
and Golda Meir are among them. Warhol himself called the suite of portraits
“Jewish Geniuses.” The difference in the titles is more significant than the
differences amongst the subjects of the work, something about which the exhibit
takes special notice.

Gertrude Stein

These portraits and the exhibit are interesting for several
reasons. The compositions and style will not surprise anyone familiar with
Warhol’s work—and who isn’t? The Warhol brand as well as his distinctive use of
color and line in combination with the photographic image have made him and his
style not simply familiar but iconic. The most famous of his portrait images,
Marilyn and Mao, have arguably become as recognizable as their original
subjects, perhaps more so.

That is exactly why an exhibit like this one is valuable for
anyone who wants to understand the depth of Warhol’s oeuvre. If it seems
tempting to dismiss any particular body of work by Warhol as redundant, well,
you know that his own answer to that charge could easily be inferred from his
endless repetition of the Campbell’s soup can.

Sara Bernhardt

As it is, seen together in this fashion the compositions in
this suite of 10 portraits seemed to me less repetitive than jazz-like
improvisations on a theme. There is a cubist element to these that is absent
from the Marilyn/Mao series, too. Most of the compositions involve the layering
of abstract geometric shapes over and behind the more familiar trope of
enhancing the photographic image with colorful linear effects.

The ones that I found personally most appealing didn’t
merely stand out compositionally but also seemed to resonate with the character
of the individual who was being depicted. This is perhaps ironic on two levels.
First, Warhol was more interested in the subject’s status as a celebrity than
any element of personality. Second, as the exhibit text reveals, “All of the
subjects were dead…. They would not be able to contest the image that Warhol
was using of them.”

Franz Kafka

That said, I found the portrait of Kafka most compelling.
The fragmented visage may be interpreted as rising out of or sinking into the
inky and infinite depth of the background. The colors that splinter his face do
not, as might be expected, make Kafka seem tortured. Rather, his piercing gaze
appears supremely confident, even prescient.

Sara Bernhardt is captivating. Her direct gaze cuts
revealingly through the insistent abstraction of Warhol’s jumble of squares and
lines.

Gertrude Stein, by contrast, who also looks directly towards
the viewer, has become so abstract as to be completely opaque, as impenetrable
perhaps as some of her own writing.

The triple portrait of the Marx Brothers is the only one
that includes more than the single subject. Warhol takes advantage of this by
repeating the three brothers with progressively more abstract renderings. This
composition most clearly echoes the soup cans.

Marx Brothers, detail

Returning to the question of the exhibit titles, the
distinction between the two is not insignificant. Although the attribution of
‘genius’ may be considered subjective, the fact is that each of the 10 subjects
was particularly accomplished in their respective fields. The descriptive text
provided by the museum asserts, “The group he selected is interesting for their
differences,” and then takes pains to identify similarities amongst these
diverse individuals. Warhol’s “geniuses”
were undoubtedly selected, as were Marilyn, Mao and many others, for their
celebrity rather than their individuality, their personality or even their
particular accomplishments, important as those are.

I’ve heard of Louis Brandeis, to pick just one example, but
I have little doubt that I’m not alone when I admit that his biography is
completely unknown to me. In fact, my enjoyment of the portraits of Kafka and
Stein was clearly influenced by being at least somewhat familiar with their own
creative endeavors.

The exhibition text adds the biographical context that is
missing from Warhol’s treatment of his subjects and, likely, most viewers’
awareness. Warhol’s “geniuses” premiered at the Jewish Museum in New York in
1980. According to the Jewish Museum website, they were “met
with both admiration and hostility.” The
same museum reprised the show in 2008 with the title, “Warhol’s Jews: Ten
Portraits Reconsidered.”

Interest in Warhol has hardly waned. One of his canvases recently set a new record at auction of $105 million. See the story.

The current exhibit continues through March 30, 2014 at
Milwaukee’s Jewish Museum, 1360 N. Prospect Ave. For more information, go to Jewish Museum.

1 comment:

You didn't happen to notice that the left eye of Gertrude Stein is in the style of Picasso drawings, his portrait of her being quite famous?

The Golda Meir is a rare picture of her smiling benevolently, the lecturer from MCA having postulated that he identified her with his beloved mother.

I found the Einstein quite curious in its black, white and gray plainness, as if Warhol was acknowledging that he couldn't grasp the mind of or hold a candle to this scientist. Buber too is plain in the original (see NYT review) as if for the same reason as einstein, though in Milwaukee's print the face is virtually obscured by the dark colors I think he obscured as if he had no idea what Buber was about or saying; certainly there was no I-Thou interaction.> >